Cooper+v.+Eugene+School+District

Cooper v. Eugene School District No. 4 J Supreme Court of Oregon Argued 1986; Decided July 28, 1986

Background: Janet Cooper was a special education teacher in Oregon’s Eugene public school system. Cooper became a Sikh and began brandishing the religion by wearing white clothes and a white turban to school. She wrote a letter to school officials informing them that she was practicing her religion by wearing the garb. After being warned by administrators to stop wearing the clothing, Cooper continued to do so. Cooper was violating a statue and was suspended by the system’s superintendent; after a hearing, the superintendent also revoked her teaching certificate. The revocation was legally challenged by Cooper and succeeding hearings in lower courts, the issue finally found itself in the Oregon Supreme Court.

Decision and Rationale: The Supreme Court essentially ruled that semantics was pivotal when interpreting the statute originally prohibiting Cooper from wearing her religious clothing. The statute did not violate the First Amendment. The impression, whether residually or straightforwardly, made by teachers wearing religious clothing may indicate to students and parents that the school approves of the religious tenets linked to the teacher’s specific religious preferences. However, the statute did not prevent teachers from wearing necklaces with small religious pendants. Secondly, the court ruled that the revocation of Cooper’s certification was not an unreasonable reaction to her noncompliance because it was not an attack of her religious practices but rather a response to her not cooperating with applicable policy.

Impact: Reflexive recalcitrance against school administrators when dealing with instances of policy defiance because a teacher does not agree with what a reasonable person would consider logical and reasonable rule is not a wise stance to take. That is the big picture. More specifically, however, is the fact that “religious neutrality” is the type of school culture prompted by administrators and school officials because it preempts allegations of religious promotion and forced exposure. Teachers should never, whether consciously or unconsciously, press their religious preferences and beliefs onto their students because it does nothing more than activate an avalanche of political and legal headaches.

Quiz Question:

True or False?

In Cooper v. Eugene School District No. 4 J, the statute banning Cooper from wearing excessively flamboyant religious garb violated her rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.


 * Completed Independently by Stephen Brooks

Submitted by Jose Ramirez Cooper v. Eugene School District No. 4 J Supreme Court of Oregon Decided July 28, 1986

BACKGROUND: Ms. Janet Cooper, a special education teacher, in the Eugene public schools, wrote a letter to the school staff where she worked, explaining to them her decision to become a Sikh. In doing so she explained that she would wear clothing that was part of her new religious practice. She also informed the school that she had already explained her changes to her students. School administrators warned her that she faced suspension if she continued to violate state law, which prohibited wearing religious attire at work. Ms. Cooper did not comply with state regulations and was eventually reported to the school superintendent, who suspended her from her teaching position. The school superintendent also reported her to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who revoked her teaching certification. Ms. Cooper brought her case before a court of appeals and was able to have both decisions overturned, stating violations of her 1st Amendment rights, freedom of religion.

DECISION AND RATIONALE: Oregon’s Supreme court sided with the School district and overturned the decision given by the court of appeals. The reason given for this decision lies within Oregon’s Legislative Assembly. According to the Court, Oregon’s Legislative Assembly passed ORS 342.650, in order to maintain the religious neutrality of the public schools, to avoid giving the impression that the school approves or shares the religious beliefs of one group over another. Furthermore, the court interpreted the statute regarding violation of the Federal First Amendment, and decided that ORS 342.650 was free and clear under Oregon’s guarantee of religion freedom, and did not find the statute as a violation of the 1st Amendment. Although Ms. Cooper’s case focused on the importance of her First Amendment Rights, the Court decided that it was a matter of whether or not she violated ORS 342.650, which was a decision that needed to be made by the school district.

IMPACT ON TEACHING: The court acknowledges that the school system employs individuals with distinct backgrounds, cultures, ideas, and religious beliefs. However when working for an entity, responsible for the public education of its citizens, teachers must know when to draw the line and conform to the regulations provided by the school system. As in the case where students are limited to the practice of freedom of speech, teachers are also limited with openly displaying their religious beliefs. The school system needs to separate itself from endorsing any one religion over another. Teachers need to understand that although we may have our different beliefs, we are still representatives of the school system and fall under the laws and regulations that govern it. We cannot openly defy the rules of our institution and expect our students to obey without question. The legal system does not bar us from practicing our religious freedom; it simply asks that we do not appear to choose one over the other.

QUESTION: TRUE OR FALSE – School districts cannot react to a teacher’s flamboyant display of their religious beliefs.

Sandra Hansen Cooper v. Eugene School District No. 4 J     Supreme Court of Oregon Argued 1986; Decided July 28, 1986 Background: Upon becoming a Sikh, Ms. Janet Cooper, wrote a letter to school officials detailing that due to her new religious practices, her clothing will reflect her beliefs. The school officials notified her that she risks suspension if she violates state law. The law prohibits the wearing of religious garb to work. Ms. Cooper failed to comply and was reported and her teaching certification was revoked. As a result, Ms. Cooper made her case in the lower courts and eventually it made it all the way the Oregon Supreme Court on the basis that her 1st Amendment rights were violated. Decision and Rationale: The Oregon Supreme Court overturned the decision given by the Court of Appeals and sided with the School district on the basis that the case was about whether or not Ms. Cooper violated ORS 342. 650. This statute was passed in order to maintain neutrality if religious beliefs within the public schools. In regards to the Statute violating her First Amendment Rights, the Oregon Supreme Court did not feel that it was not in violation. Under the Statute, teachers were allowed to war small pendants linked to a teacher’s religion. Impact: This case shows that while a teacher is entitled to his or her rights guaranteed by the Constitution, they need to be aware that they are not violating the rights of his or her student. Teachers need to remain neutral within the school system and not push their beliefs on their students. Question: True/False A teacher’s certification cannot be revoked as result to a teacher’s failure to comply with State mandated laws.